Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/29/1969SOUTHOLD TO~N BOAQ~LD OF AP~JLS May 29~ 1969 A regular meeting of the Southo!d Tov~n Board of Appeals was held at 7:30 P.M., Thursday~ ~f~y 29~ 1969~ at the Tow~ Office, 9~in Road~ Southotd~ New York. There were present: Messrs: Robert W. Gitlispie, Jr.~ Chairman; Robert Bergen~ Fred Hu!se: Jr~ Charles Grigonis~ Jr. The Board took up the application of Oscar Goldin~ 520 Fourt Street~ Greenport, New York~ for a variance in accordance ~.~th the Zoning Ordina~ce~ A~ticle X~ Section 1007, Subsection (e)~ and (f), for permission to construct addition to non-conforming d~e!ling.~ Location of property: south side Wiggins Street~ east by Jas~ Piriile Bstate~ south by Mary Hes~ey, west by Ads.m Johnson. T~CI%~.LI~zn~q: We need some further information on t~his application. Is there anyone present who can help us with that? ST~2fLEY CORWIN~ ESQ.: As we understand the situation it is a non- conforming use in that there are two houses on one piece of property. The size of the rooms do not mee~ the standard requirements. They are asking us to bring it into conformance with the Housing Code. The Housing Code is asking us to add a room on. We c~n~t add a moom on because you are expanding a non-conforming use. At that point the application was brought in here. We thought this would be a formality, if the value is less th~n 50% of the value that is there~ there slmouldn't be any problem. Tb~ C~IiL~N: That is correct~ I think that we have no jurisdiction if it is est~u!ished that the value of the addition will not exceed SO~ of the present ~we!ling. ~,.~. CORWLN: Would you want us to bring this position to this Board. We are prepared to do it. Tii~ ~iR~hN: The Ordinance stated that a non-conforming building may not be e~cended to exceed 505 cf the fair ~rket v~lue of the dwelling, I~, HULSE: if they can prove to the Building Inspector that i~ will not exceed 50% of the value, there is no need to come before this Be~d. %~at you have to add here is a Board of Health requirement° ~. CORWID~= You can take administrative notice of what is going on here. Southotd Town Board o~' Appeals (2) ~'~ May 29, 1969 MR. CORWIN: The assessed value of the house and lot is $1200.00; $800.00 is improvement. THE CHAIRMA/~: The lot is assessed at what? MR. CORWIN: The lot is $400.00 THE CHAIRF~: And what are the improvements? MR. CORWIN: $800. Using the State Equalization Rate it brings it up to $2500.00, the value the Town would put on it using 3~/o of the assessment. THE CHAIP~WiAN: It would help you to use four times, yourare using three. You already have one improved building on that lot. MR. CORWIN: Yes, we made some improvements and they are builfi into that assessment. THE CHAIP~AN: You improved the easterly building ? MR. GOLDING: yes, several years ago. THE CHAIRMAN: What improvements did you make to that building? MR. GOLDIN: There was a bedroom and one large room made out of two small rooms by taking the partition out. THE CHAIRMAN: What do you think these two parcels are assessed at? MR. CORWIN: I don't think at this point we can break down the value on the two houses. Even if we did, there is no question in my mind. ..... THE CHAIRMAN: The big house is the westerly house? HOWARD TERRY, Building Inspector: The westerly house is the one we are concerned with at the present time. According to my information from the assessors, the easterly house, has a total value of about $2,000. plus or minus, and the westerly house has an assessment of about $1,200., plus or minus. THE CHAIRMAN: ~at formula are you using? HOWARD TERRY: This is what the assessors gave me when I asked them about it. MR. HU~SE: That is full value on the house? MR. CORWIN: If this is going on the record, we have hear-say evidence. We are 'ready to put evidence on the record, under oath. We are putting on 40 square feet, however that isn't as much as 50% of the building. Sonthold Tc~vn Bosrdof ~ppeals Page -3 - [~y 29~ 1969 You have to alter room sizes~ b~o CORWIN: That we can do without a permit. We are ta~ng about structural work that recuires a permit, That has nothing to do with work ths~ doesn't requi~e a permit. P~. T~RRY: It has to do with the value of the building. occupy without a bathroom. You can't TP~ CPD~IR~t~i'[: Subject to ~,'~. Corwin's objection~ let's have again what the ~.rket value is. ~ ~. TERRY: The easterly building is ~2000.00, plus or minus, s~d the westerly building is $1200,00, plus Dr minus~ BERGEN: This is with the land, or without the land? HC~VD~D TEP~Y: This has nothing to do with the land T~ CP3~Ii~,~%j%: I wo~Id say that it applies ~o just this buii~ing we are concerned with, ~. COR?JIN: If this bui!din~ was the only building on the property the propertY.~vould not be non-conforming. The fact that there are ~vo houses on this property make it i,~. TERP3!: You have to have side yards ~nd this doesn't have ~ey side yards, T5~ C~a~IRi~D~: On a 50 foot lot that c~utt be corrforming even ~f you only had one dwel!in9 on it. MR. TERRY: If it met the side yard requirements it would be~ but it doesn't have the side y~ds~ THE CHAIPJ~3~: A house would not be permitted now on a lot of that size~ 55 feet or ~hatever it is. How big is the dwei!i~g? MP,~ TERP, Y: PJoout 12 feet by 10 feet. ~ ~_~IP~,,~u~. Just a little larger than a one car ~arage. b~. COR~3IN: 2~000 square feet. ~ TERRY: 200 square feet. b~q. COPZJIN: %~7e are e~ctending 40 feet which is less tha~n T~ C!-L~I],~IA~: %,~at are you adding on to this buiidin9~ 5 feet by 8 feet? ~,~. COR%qIN: 40 square feet. Ti~ CP3~IRi~t~{: ~n=t %vil! be in ~his bathroom? Southoid To~ Board of ;~peais Page -4- >%ay 29, 1969 i~ C-OLDIN: A shower: basin auad toilet. T~]~ Cw ~-°~^~ is ' .... l=a~-n,~, l~at the value of what that ms worth? [~. GOLDI~. The cost of buil~in9 it? T~ C~D~IR[~ZqJ~[: ~aat would you consider the value of it? ~,'LR ~ GOLDIN: I don ~ t follow you. TS~ CHAIR~%~d~: VSuat is it going to cost you to do it? I,~. ~R~N: About $13.00 a square foot. I',~. GOLDI~-~: ,a/oout $400.00 for the whole job. TP~ CI~kIRI~W: You are 9oin~ to do it very che~%o, %?e have to put a Value on ~his for everybody, You don't want to e%~luate what it woul~ be worth ~ you were assessing it. P~. ~_~ A~ter it was cor~!eted? ±P~ CHA~,..L~I. ~"~at would it cost you, or I to have a bathroom put in if we hired an outside contractor? ?.~. CORWIN: $i0.00 a square foot. %Je are ts~uSng about new construction. TP~ CPL%IRI~iaN: I think it wo~!d cost more th~n 50% of the vatue~ Xt~il%k it will cost more th~u ~= ~o00.00, and I think it will cost more than $600.00 to put in a oat~room. ~hat would be_more than i,iq. GOLDII~: I built a I0 x 12 foot addition ~nich cost me ~81B.96~ which is a trifle !ess th~n $7.00 squmre foot. T~ Cb~IP2~A2~i: V~o built it? ~. GOLDIN: 3oseph Crenshaw. ~at is in the use? MR. GOLDiN: ~othing ~ ~ C~IR~2~: Ho~z~ much would this proposed addition cost? Pkq. C-OLDIPi: $7~00 square foot. Th~ CPHilPJ?~ I don~t think you c~n get ~ree fixtures for a bathroom. ~9L.~I~o There is no reuuirement that the fixtures have to be nevT. If they comply~ ther~ is no reason w.hy you c~n~t do it, ~ he c~ do it for less than $0~0.00 he should be able to do it. ifhat you are saying~ he should have new fixtures here. Southold Totem Board of Appeals Page -5- ~y 29~ 1969 TP~ CP~i~i~N: l~aat we have to establish is what the value of the use will be ~ter it is completed. i,'~. COPJ¥IN: I think that is the wrong way to ~oproach it. Take the present value of the property for now and add the cost of construction. if is more th~n 50~ of that figure th~n he can't do it~ if it's less than he can do it. I contend it's less th~n T~ CP_~.i~: It would be less tab~ $600~007 ~. CORI~3IN: Even if you s~ply to that one buiidin9 i%'s still 50~. Our problem is ~ don~t kno~~ if ~e are %o m~ke formal appiicm~ion ~o this Board~ or 9o back ~o ~he building ~spector. Tt~CN~_IRP~: The bui!din9 inspector thought it was more th~ 50%~ that is v,~y you ~e here. I don't think we have ~y jurisdiction other th~ this addition is ~oin9 to be more th~ 50~ of the value of the building. We have established the value at $i200.00. !'~. CORlfiN: ire c~ 9uar~tee that the value will not be more th~u 505 when it is co.Dieted. T~CH3~IP~aW: It is all right with me. This property is just outside the Vi!lage.of Greenport? I~. COR%?IN: Yes. T~ C~I~N: Does this have cesspools? I~. C0~I5% Yes. T~ CHu%IDi~2,I: The cesspools ~e located on this property? ~. CORWIN: Yes, right on the property that is being used. T~ Cl~I~a~: You have water there? MR. CORWII~ Yes~ %~e have city water. Tb~ C~iR~;D3{: %~E~at else has to be done here? HO~TD~D TERRY: They have to enlarge one room to make m minimu~ of !50 squ~e feet, ~other room has to have a ~nim~ of 80 square feet, but there is no barroom. ~ud I think there was one window that has to be enlarged for ~ emergency exit. T~ C~zIR~ia~: You don~t have to e~and it to get that area in there? H~ARD T~RRY: The pl~ns ~e to ch~ge the ~ar~i~i~s.~ he puts in a second door that will overcome the second exit. Tt-~ CH~I: %~at ~ou are talkin~ about.is ~-~{~ging peli~ons. Are there ~uy o~her que~tmons anyB~e ~There was no response.) Sonthold Tov~ Board of Appeals Page ~6- ~,~ay 29, 1969 TP~ CI~%II~AN: This addition for a bathroom is going to cost !ess tha~u $600.00? MRo GODUIN: Yes, sir. TP~ CF~IR~a~W: In your opinJon~ ~;~. Corwin~ this will not cost more ~qo CORWIN: In my opinion it ~rill be less than THE CI~%IR}D%N: ~r. Terry~ ~natzs your opinion of what this addition would cost? ~ HC~,~ARD TERRY: $7B0.00~ that is my estimate on it. T~ CPLg~iP~;~N: Are there any other questions? (There was no response.) On motion by ~. Giliisoie~ seconded by ~r~ ~ ~ H~_e~ it ?~s R-~SOLVED:After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applican$~requests permission to construct an addition to non- conforming dwelling. Tl~ese additions are necessary because of a ruling by the Board of Health and the Southold Town Housing Board of Appeals. The Board does not have jurisdiction and the application for the building permit should be granted by the Building Inspector in view of the fact it is ~he opinion of the Board that the proposed addition does not exceed 50% of the fair market value of the building in question. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- ~4r. Gillispie, ~,.~o H~Ise, ~. Grigonis~ Nay: - Mr. Bergen. PL~LIC ~ARING: Upon application of Hedvig P. Terry~ Horton's Lane~ Southold~ I~ew York~ for a variance in accordacne ~ith the Zoning Ordinance~ A~ticle III, Sec!ion 303 and Article X, Section !000A: for permission to use lots 28 7 29, 26 & 27~ 30 & 31, as single and separate lots with less than recuired area. Location of property: west side Mary's Road, Matiituck~ ~tew York, lots nu~bered 28 & 29~ 26 & 27~ 30 & 31, on Map No. 577 of Garden Heights~ ~ttituck,New York. Fee paid The Chiirman opened the hearing by reading the application for a variance~ legal notice of hearinG~ affidavit attesting to lbs publication in the official newspaper, and notice to the applicant. TP~CPL~IRlZ~N: Is there anyone present who wishes to spe~kinfavor of this application? R,G, TE~qY~ ESQ,: Gentlemen~ I appear on behalf of Hedvig Terry~ ~nd i ask that you give favorable consideration. I have s~ed the situation in the application. Southotd ~o~u/ Bard of Appeals Page -7- ~y 29~ 1969 r~. ~RGEN: These are 50 foot lots~ you are taking six lots making three lots out of them. R. G~ TBP~RY: ESQ.: All these lots are very close to bein9 within the limited area. T5~ CPLAI~q~2f: Anyone else wish to spes/< for this application? (There was no response.) TH~C~3~I~N: Is there anyone pres~t who wishes to speed,k against this s~ptication? There was no response°) ~fter investigation s~d inspection the Board £~uds that the applicant requests permission touse certain lots as separate lots with less than the required area. The Board finds that the area would be improved by usin9 the lots in this ~ashion. This will be in keeping with the spirit of the ~onin9 Ordinance. in 9enera~ the Board agrees with the reasoning of the applicant. The Board finds that strict application of the ~onin90rdin~uce will produce practical difficulties or u~ecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike ~n'the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district~ and ~ the variance will observe the spirit of the Ordinance and Will not chr~ge the character of the area. On motion by '~r~ C~illispie~ seconded by Mr~ Bergen; it was RESOLVED Hedvi~ P. Terry~ ~rton's Lane~ Southoid~ ~e~ York~ be grated permission to use lots 28 & 29~ 26 & 2T, 20 & 31, as single snd separate lots ~ith less th~ required area. Location of property: %~st side Road~ ~ttituck~ ~w York~ lots n~bere~ 28 & 29~ 26 & 27~ 30 & B! on ~'~p No. 577 of ~rden Heights~ ~ttituck: New Vote of ~he Bo~d: Ayes:- ~. Gillispie~ M~, ~r~en~ M~.HUtse~ ~. Grig0n~s. PUBLIC H~£'~QING: Appeal No. 125i~-'7J~$ P~M~(E.D~S.T.)~ L~on application of Peter_S. & Eleanor ~;mrchica~ Sigsbee Road, i¥~ttituck~ New York~ for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordin~nCe~'D~ticle iII~ Section and Article X~ Section 1000A~ for permission to reduce frontage and Location of property: lot no~s 28 & 29 of ;~mended ~p of M~ttituck Park Properties~ Inc,~ Map no. 801. Fee paid The Chairman opened the hes~in9 by read~u9 the application for a variance, le~la notice of hearing~ affidavit attesting to its pub!ic~tion in the official newspaper~ and notice tothe applicant. 'sbuthold To~u~ Board of Appeals Page ~8- ~y 29, 1969 ]~R. B~RGEN: There wontt be sunY actual change except that five feet of property will.change ov~rship. ~. HLW~SE: It would improve it I assume. TP~ CHAIR~I: This would impDove property for both parties. iS there anyone present who wishes to spea~k against this applicatio~? (There was no response.) After investigation ~ud inspection the Board finds that the applicant requests permission to reduce'frontage and area. The applic~t is requesting to sell five feet of property ~o an adjoining property. This will actually improve both properties~ ~nd there will be no physical ch~ge in the property. The only change will be a line on a ~p. The' Board finds that strict application of'the Ordinance will.produce practical difficulties or ~uecesssury hardship; the hardship created is uniGue and would not be shared by all proerties alike in the i~a~ediate vic{nity of this property and in the sarme use district and the variance will not change the character of the district and will d3serve the spirit of the Ordirance. On motion by ~r. Bergen~ seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED Peter S. & Eleanor Marchica: Sigsbee Road¢ .~¢~ttituck¢ New York~ be gr&unt, ed permission to reduce frontage ~d area as applied for on propoerty !ocated: lot no. 's 28 & 29~ of ~J~ended ~p of IvL%ttituck Park Properties~ F~p no. 801. gore of the Board: Ayes:- ~;~. Gil!ispie, b~. Bergen, ~. Hulse: ~. Grig0nis. The next regular meetLu9 of the Southold To~ Board o~ Appeals will be held at 7:30 P.M.~ Thursday~ 3une 12, 1969~ at the Town Office~ Road~ Southold,New York. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 Respectfully submitted APPROVED